Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Man wins $65K after being fired for refusing to be fingerprinted

startribune.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 255 posts

Re: Man wins $65K after being fired for refusing to be fingerprinted

#101

Post by selcuka »

elteto wrote: post #82
selcuka wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe it's not the same for any other religion. For example conversions to Judaism are overseen by a religious court.

An actual court in the US will probably not try to legislate whether a person is of the Jewish faith or not, _regardless_ of what some other religious "court" says. Probably (IANAL) if a person says that they observe the Jewish faith and that this is a deeply held belief, regardless of whether some religious organization recognizes him/her, that will be enough for the courts.

Sorry, I was talking from the believer's point of view; not from a law perspective. You are probably right about that.

Re: Man wins $65K after being fired for refusing to be fingerprinted

#102

Post by dodobirdlord »

TeeMassive wrote: post #78
throwawaylinux wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Religious exemptions shouldn't be a thing though. I should not get more protections or rights in any way than another citizen because I happen to have or claim different beliefs than them. I'm not talking about being discriminated against because of religious beliefs, mind you. I'm talking about the right to do or refuse something (e.g., refuse a fingerprint or, or refuse to serve alcohol) and protection of those cho…

Religious exemptions are not limited to "official religions". Deep moral and philosophical exemptions can and have been made.

Sure, but if an exception is made for anyone based on their beliefs, it should be available to everyone universally regardless of their beliefs. Otherwise, people de facto have a different set of rights based on their beliefs.

These sorts of exceptions have historically been made in deference to pragmatism, an example being not drafting bona fide pacifists into the military due to the pointlessness thereof. But deferring to pragmatism when dealing with the topic of human rights is offensive.

Re: Man wins $65K after being fired for refusing to be fingerprinted

#103

Post by blunte »

motohagiography wrote: post #24

Good. Religious exemptions are pragmatic canaries for state overreach. People are not livestock, even if states and employers like to treat them that way. The idea of a religious exemption isn't just some pastafarian variation, it represents a very real line between the individual and group and whether one is a citizen or mere property. This is the marking issue with biometrics. Are you a being with agency, or are yo…

Religion is as much bullshit as most political parties are. It's a few people trying to control and profit off masses.

I we humans were half as rational and scientific as we believe ourselves, we would put energy into proving or disproving religious beliefs. But that is taboo, or rather it is off limits since so much of formerly ill gotten monies are now available to fight against such investigations.

Re: Man wins $65K after being fired for refusing to be fingerprinted

#104

Post by sneak »

IncRnd wrote: post #18
sneak wrote: post #10

I'm not sure why people are so weird about fingerprints and facial recognition. Your biometrics are not secret at all, any more than your hair color. You fingerprint yourself in every restaurant with glass cups, and leave those prints behind when you depart.

Would you mind posting here and now web links to pictures of your face and your fingerprints?

Pictures of my face are on my website, and have been uploaded to Facebook and Instagram many times by my friends.

My fingerprints have been provided to several vendors and government agencies (Clear, TSA pre) who have industry-average data security (that is to say, I expect them to leak).

None are secret. Come up to me the next time I make a public appearance and you are welcome to my fingerprints. :)

Re: Man wins $65K after being fired for refusing to be fingerprinted

#105

Post by KittenInABox »

Gunax wrote: post #84
mikeryan wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Satanic Temple has been pushing to use religious exemptions around laws such as Texas' recent abortion law. https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/texas/article/Sata...

The Satanists are a perfect poison pill to overbroad exemptions. They have all ready staged a figurative middle finger to religious carve-outs with their 10 commandments protest (disguised as a Moloch statue, of course). 'Oh, I thought this was for all faiths to be treated equally...' And since it's a new/fake religion, their beliefs are a blank slate which can be adapted to whichever liberty or situation presents it…

I like the Satanists for the purposes of showing/challenging legal exceptions for religious beliefs. Unfortunately a big hole I see in this logic is the notion of "reasonable accommodation"; that is to say, what is considered a reasonable accommodation would be influenced by the majority religions. So, certain opinions on certain medical procedures would be considered reasonable, while others wouldn't be, and a heavily-Christian-influenced cultural notion of reasonability would of course be biased towards Christian religious beliefs...

Re: Man wins $65K after being fired for refusing to be fingerprinted

#106

Post by throwawaylinux »

Lammy wrote: post #98
throwawaylinux wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Religious exemptions shouldn't be a thing though. I should not get more protections or rights in any way than another citizen because I happen to have or claim different beliefs than them. I'm not talking about being discriminated against because of religious beliefs, mind you. I'm talking about the right to do or refuse something (e.g., refuse a fingerprint or, or refuse to serve alcohol) and protection of those cho…

> I'm talking about the right to do or refuse something (e.g., refuse a fingerprint or, or refuse to serve alcohol) and protection of those choices. I hope you're not fond of "the weekend" considering it used to take a religious exemption to get a day off work at all https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shabbat "Oop, gotta go — it's Buchwuch!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tg58j-MoFic

That's not an argument.

Re: Man wins $65K after being fired for refusing to be fingerprinted

#107

Post by sigzero »

keithnz wrote: post #7
sodality2 wrote: post #2

"Harrington informed APRS in July 2017 that having his fingerprints captured was contrary to his 'sincerely held religious belief.'" Good on him, but I thought they actually checked up on the whole "religious beliefs" thing? Is this an actual Christian belief? Edit: "Plaintiff, a devout Christian, informed AST that the Book of Revelation prohibits the “mark of the devil” which she believed included fingerprinting and…

yeah, I'm confused what belief is held such that you can't be fingerprinted. My initial searching for what that might be is mostly "Mark of the Beast". Which seems odd.

Fingerprinting could not in any way be interpreted as the "mark of the beast" because there is no mark put on the person during fingerprinting. So that wouldn't stand any scrutiny. Religious or otherwise.

Re: Man wins $65K after being fired for refusing to be fingerprinted

#108

Post by bigiain »

akerl_ wrote: post #77
bigiain wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This was his job. With his private sector employer. Who paid him money in exchange for services. Who then changed the agreement from not even mentioning requiring fingerprinting to absolutely requiring it. That's the most egregious bad-faith example in this story. If a business can arbitrarily declare "You now all need to pass background checks including fingerprinting to keep your jobs", what's to stop them saying…

> what's to stop them saying "You now need to accept getting paid half of what we'd agreed to when you were employed"? In most of the US, for most US jobs, absolutely nothing. The vast majority of US workers are at-will employees. Their boss can call them up at any point and say “We’ve decided that starting next pay period, we’ll be cutting your salary in half. Have a great day!” The employee’s options are to accept…

Yeah - I've never quite understood that "at will" employment status you have over there.

Here in Australia, we're a fair bit more heavily unionised than you are over there, which helps keep some of the power imbalance in the employers favour in check.

Not that unionisation is perfect though either. When I was growing up it was a regular thing for unions to wield their collective power in aggressively overreaching ways - it was common for transport unions and fuel industry unions to have extended strikes over pay claims right before christmas, tand truck drivers would stop delivering to stores, oil refineries would shut down resulting in fuel rationing, and dock workers would stand down resulting in queues full of container ships full of imported goods on the horizon at the beach in summer.

Re: Man wins $65K after being fired for refusing to be fingerprinted

#109

Post by kgc »

motohagiography wrote: post #24

Good. Religious exemptions are pragmatic canaries for state overreach. People are not livestock, even if states and employers like to treat them that way. The idea of a religious exemption isn't just some pastafarian variation, it represents a very real line between the individual and group and whether one is a citizen or mere property. This is the marking issue with biometrics. Are you a being with agency, or are yo…

Could someone just start a religion that disallows taxation and stop paying taxes?

Re: Man wins $65K after being fired for refusing to be fingerprinted

#110

Post by beerandt »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #60
williamtrask wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That has its benefits given that anyone could otherwise just make up beliefs on the spot to suit their need. Religion requires a bit more institutionalisation and weight.

When it comes to biometrics, why is it bad if I decide on the spot I'm not okay with it, as opposed to having decided as part of an institution?

It shouldn't, but the organized religions have largely held their ground on principle, when others have given up rights for broken promises of safety, or equality, or "for the greater good," but most of all, because they think it'll only apply to others or be used in a limited scope.

And that's never the case.

Post reply on HN